News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a classical computer. Parent comment

Re:IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a ... by marcosdumay on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @09:17AM (#15541269)
> quantum digital is boring, quantum analog, now that’s flavortown

What do you mean by that? You mean simulating on analogical classical computers? Or quantum computers without qbits?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a ... by adamnemecek on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @09:20AM (#15541289)
The latter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-variable_quantum_...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a ... by marcosdumay on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @01:48PM (#15543542)
Are there expected advantages from using continuous values?

I imagine error resistance would become incredibly harder. Does information density grow fast enough to compensate it?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a ... by adamnemecek on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @04:07PM (#15544819)
This is actually a really long answer but to give you a flavor, on an analog computer, you can sort in o(n) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_sort also you have integration and differentiation as primitives.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a ... by diegoperini on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @01:04PM (#15543127)
String (theoritical physics) computers?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IBM has simulated a quantum computer with 56 qubits on a ... by taneq on Tuesday October 24, 2017 @10:37AM (#15541860)
Or was it a pun about types of quark?
[ Parent | on HN ]